I Cannot Imagine...

[Edwardo Piet]

Rhizo,

I worked really hard on that post. It was a response to yours. If you don't want to reply, fair enough.

EvF

[Rhizomorph13]

EvF,

I meant no dissrespect. It just seems like you are telling me that iceskates don't work well for walking and I am telling you they have a perfectly good use; in an ice rink. It seems that you keep repeating points that I have agreed with while completely ignoring my points.

This seems to be a very personal issue with you and you might have an emotional block like I would if we were talking about the term "common sense" (I fucking hate that concept!). I feel THAT term is used to label and degrade me as maybe you feel that "over-analysis" has been used to label and degrade you? Do I understand that right? (If you don't answer this direct question I am going to KNOW you are skimming my posts! naughty naughty.)

I don't know if you even understand my frame of reference, corporate analysis. I work for quality and reliability for Intel and in my role I have been in meetings upon meetings called to analyze problems. I can tell you from experience that over-analysis can be a huge problem. It is a useful term and it reads like you have been the victim of jackasses looking to degrade you. I empathize but still value the term, as should you. Applied personally YOU get to referee what is "too much analysis" and you can even set that limit to infinity if you really want to, I certainly wouldn't reccomend it though. It detracts from all that time you could be using to drink wiskey, smoke cigars, and bang beaver! Oh, and I suppose you could add listening to Orbital in there if you want.

Cheers,
Rhizo

[Edwardo Piet]

I feel by 2nd and 3rd paragraphs (of the 3) in my last post, deal with all that about it being a good term.

My point is that if you take it literally, the term doesn't actually make sense. Because we're all thinking all the time. So you can't analyze too much, it's more of a question of how you analyze than 'how much', there is no how much.

The problem is many do take it literally. There is no such thing as 'thinking too much', that doesn't even make sense. I could have no worries at all and not be analyitcal at all and I'd still have the same amount of thoughts, I wouldn't be analysing any less - it's not about amount - I'd just be being less analytical, which is an adjective and actually makes sense in the context.

If someone suggests you to stop thinking too much or say that you over analyse, they're asking you to do the impossible. If on the other hand they tell you to stop worrying so much or to be less analytical they're talking of a change of attitude, not telling you to stop thinking or analysing as much, which is literally impossible without dying or losing a chunk of your brain.

You think I have been ignoring your points. It's fine for you to have that opinion, but IMO I have just been coming at this from an unusual angle, although I believe a correct one.

It's hard to explain, but hopefully I've provided more clarity this time round.

EvF

[Rhizomorph13]

EvF,

From a philosophical point of view I agree with you; there are no philosophical questions that should have a time limit on analysis.

Would you agree with me that in a corporate setting over-analysis should be avoided?

Even in corporate settings things are revisited but due to time constraints over-analysis should be avoided.

Rhizo

[Edwardo Piet]

I disagree with the term over analysis because it implies analysing too much. But as I said above, you can't analyse or think too much, you can only be overly analytical (adjective makes the difference). This is the problem I have with the term. It gets it into - at least some - people's heads that they can possibly think too much, or analyse too much. But it's actually about whether their approach is too analytical, or not analytical enough. In either case they are baisically still thinking/analysing the same amount, it's about the method(s) and how they are thinking - it's not about the amount

I agree with what the purpose of the term is meant to be about, I just think it can be misleading to at least quite a few of us, when it's taken literally.

EvF

[Rhizomorph13]

EvF,

I would suggest that the idea of over-analysis is a good one to apply to your own thoughts. No matter what you are thinking about you will have to move on to another subject at some point so it is up to you to decide what is over-analysis and what is "normal" for you. Please understand that I have agreed with you several times now but balk at your refusal to accept the term where it prooves to be useful. At any rate I think we have both beat the shizzle out of this horse. I would like you give me a straight answer to this question:

Would you agree with me that in a corporate setting over-analysis should be avoided?

If no then we will have to agree to dissagree,
Rhizo

[Edwardo Piet]

I have already agreed that I agree with the purpose of the term 'Over analysis' I just disagree with the common usage of the term itself because I think that the term of being 'overly analyical is better. Since you can't literally think too much or analyse too much. But you can read into things too much or be overly analyical in the way(s) you think.

On the matter of using it on your own thoughts - That's an example of just how literally speaking it doesn't makes sense at all...because I (or whoever) basically have exactly the same number of thoughts running through my head regardless of how analytical they are. I can't analyse too much, or think too much my thoughts can only be overly (or underly) analytical, in their behaviour or manner.

If we ever think that we can possibly think or analyse too much, in the sense of amount then I believe we're mistake and that can lead to frustration. Our thoughts just do their thing either way in terms of amount - the amount of thoughts is basically the same. It's about the how, not the amount. It's not about quantity, but quality. You can't think or analyse 'too much'. It's always basically the same amount. That's all I'm trying to say. I'm not saying the term is useless, I'm just saying I think it can be misleading, literally speaking it's false, and being 'overly analytical', makes more sense. Although I admit it's less 'punchy' perhaps .

EvF

[Rhizomorph13]

EvF,

Cool, then we (mostly) agree.

Rhizo